Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7413649" data-attributes="member: 82106">Sure, it is self-evident that we manage&nbsp; to play despite this. What isn't self-evident is that there's a commonly&nbsp; held set of facts from which to reason about the game world. This makes&nbsp; it difficult, at best, to make the game 'about' a particular thing.&nbsp; Story exists, but its several conflicting stories and nobody has really&nbsp; 'bought' a particular one. Story Now helps with this (though nothing&nbsp; makes it go away as an issue, and for that matter people get different&nbsp; stories out of a book too). I don't think it disqualifies any mode of&nbsp; play, but it calls into question what the technique really actually is&nbsp; in practice.It isn't about 'can we resolve X', it&nbsp; is about who can say if X is going to be significant and determine in an&nbsp; objective fashion the odds of ANYTHING at all? This is the problem&nbsp; which plagues lots of play, including examples in this thread such as&nbsp; the &quot;unknown operative&quot; example (much earlier) where the PCs&nbsp; inadvertently made an enemy by hiring some woman due to facts which they&nbsp; could not possibly know. Even had they known SOME of the facts they&nbsp; couldn't reliably reason from that to some inevitable conclusion that&nbsp; they would make an enemy. In truth its impossible to know if any&nbsp; particular action my character is going to take is even feasible or not.&nbsp; I have to rely on some very highly conserved conventions of play for&nbsp; that.Yes, they are synonyms. Which 'hats' belong to whom is of course&nbsp; some of what the thread seems to have become about. My point was that&nbsp; 'neutral' is not realistic. It just isn't something that can be viable&nbsp; in practice, regardless of theory. I don't even see how it is desirable&nbsp; to be perfectly honest! I mean, the GM shouldn't be biased against any&nbsp; particular player or character. At least not in most games (I think&nbsp; Paranoia and similar things might allow for it).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7413649, member: 82106"] Sure, it is self-evident that we manage to play despite this. What isn't self-evident is that there's a commonly held set of facts from which to reason about the game world. This makes it difficult, at best, to make the game 'about' a particular thing. Story exists, but its several conflicting stories and nobody has really 'bought' a particular one. Story Now helps with this (though nothing makes it go away as an issue, and for that matter people get different stories out of a book too). I don't think it disqualifies any mode of play, but it calls into question what the technique really actually is in practice. It isn't about 'can we resolve X', it is about who can say if X is going to be significant and determine in an objective fashion the odds of ANYTHING at all? This is the problem which plagues lots of play, including examples in this thread such as the "unknown operative" example (much earlier) where the PCs inadvertently made an enemy by hiring some woman due to facts which they could not possibly know. Even had they known SOME of the facts they couldn't reliably reason from that to some inevitable conclusion that they would make an enemy. In truth its impossible to know if any particular action my character is going to take is even feasible or not. I have to rely on some very highly conserved conventions of play for that. Yes, they are synonyms. Which 'hats' belong to whom is of course some of what the thread seems to have become about. My point was that 'neutral' is not realistic. It just isn't something that can be viable in practice, regardless of theory. I don't even see how it is desirable to be perfectly honest! I mean, the GM shouldn't be biased against any particular player or character. At least not in most games (I think Paranoia and similar things might allow for it). [/QUOTE]

Verification